...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Yield of Stool Culture with Isolate Toxin Testing versus a Two-Step Algorithm Including Stool Toxin Testing for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile
【24h】

Yield of Stool Culture with Isolate Toxin Testing versus a Two-Step Algorithm Including Stool Toxin Testing for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile

机译:粪便培养的分离毒素测试与包括粪便毒素测试的两步法检测产毒艰难梭菌的算法

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

We examined the incremental yield of stool culture (with toxin testing on isolates) versus our two-step algorithm for optimal detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Per the two-step algorithm, stools were screened for C. difficile-associated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and, if positive, tested for toxin by a direct (stool) cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In parallel, stools were cultured for C. difficile and tested for toxin by both indirect (isolate) CCNA and conventional PCR if the direct CCNA was negative. The “gold standard” for toxigenic C. difficile was detection of C. difficile by the GDH screen or by culture and toxin production by direct or indirect CCNA. We tested 439 specimens from 439 patients. GDH screening detected all culture-positive specimens. The sensitivity of the two-step algorithm was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84%), and that of culture was 87% (95% CI, 80 to 92%). PCR results correlated completely with those of CCNA testing on isolates (29/29 positive and 32/32 negative, respectively). We conclude that GDH is an excellent screening test and that culture with isolate CCNA testing detects an additional 23% of toxigenic C. difficile missed by direct CCNA. Since culture is tedious and also detects nontoxigenic C. difficile, we conclude that culture is most useful (i) when the direct CCNA is negative but a high clinical suspicion of toxigenic C. difficile remains, (ii) in the evaluation of new diagnostic tests for toxigenic C. difficile (where the best reference standard is essential), and (iii) in epidemiologic studies (where the availability of an isolate allows for strain typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing).
机译:我们通过粪便培养的增量产量(对分离物进行了毒素测试)与我们的两步法优化了产毒艰难梭菌的检测方法进行了比较。按照两步算法,对粪便中的 C进行筛查。艰难梭菌相关的谷氨酸脱氢酶(GDH)抗原,如果呈阳性,则通过直接(粪便)细胞培养细胞毒性中和试验(CCNA)检测毒素。同时,将粪便培养 C。如果直接CCNA阴性,则可以通过间接(分离)CCNA和常规PCR进行毒素检测。产毒 C的“金标准”。艰难 C的检测。通过GDH筛选或通过直接或间接CCNA产生的培养物和毒素产生的细菌我们测试了439位患者的439个标本。 GDH筛选检测到所有培养阳性样本。两步算法的敏感度为77%(95%置信区间[CI],70至84%),而培养的敏感度为87%(95%CI,80至92%)。 PCR结果与分离株的CCNA测试结果完全相关(分别为29/29阳性和32/32阴性)。我们得出的结论是,GDH是一项出色的筛选测试,而采用分离CCNA测试的培养可检测到另外2​​3%的产毒 C。直接CCNA错过了difficile 。由于培养是乏味的,并且还检测出非毒性的 C。因此,我们得出结论:(i)当直接CCNA阴性但对产毒 C的临床高度怀疑时,培养是最有用的。 (ii)在评估新的产毒素 C诊断测试中仍然存在。艰难梭菌(最好的参考标准是必不可少的),以及(iii)流行病学研究(其中分离物的可用性允许菌株分型和抗菌药敏测试)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号